Support NeoGAF

[gofreak]

I saw the RSX pictures at gamefront, didn’t bother translating

It was posted on B3D a couple of days ago, and most seemed to think it wasn't RSX.

As for AA and a hit on shading power - isn't AA pretty much a fixed function operation on these chips, with its own logic? Why would your pixel shaders be handling that?

 

[Chiggs]

I knew it!! I knew it was just a G70 modded to PS3 inputs. So long ago, nobody believed me.... They didn't state RSX stats because it would have compromised the G70 launch and fundamentally given ATi free spec sheets months early. But now that G70 is officially launched, RSX is as well.....

Tell that to Doube D; just check out his comments in this thread from last night:

http://new.ga-forum.com/showthread.php?t=52554

Oh, and by the way, Doube, if you're reading this - I was right.

 

[llTll]

Also for those of you thinking it'll blow away the Xenos, take into fact the efficiency of the unified pipes. Xenos will be more likely to hit it's theoreticals than RSX will. As well as the 4xAA hit RSX will take as well, if they decide to employ AA at all. Basically XBox 360 is coming out 6 months in advance and will hold it's own pretty damn good, I can even say you'll probably see no difference in games.

umm..

i dont know much about spces. how man can u know that Xenos will have better efficiency than RSX when you dont have clear idea how the Cell + RSX will work. ??

all i know from those numbers [ which are just benchmarks ], RSX clearly has the edge in terms of raw power.

again. i am only talking from my ass. i just compare numbers. nothing more

 

[Chiggs]

umm..

i dont know much about spces. how man can u know that Xenos will have better efficiency than RSX when you dont have clear idea how the Cell + RSX will work. ??

all i know from those numbers [ which are just brnchmarks ] that RSX clearly has the edge in terms of raw power.

again. i am only talking from my ass. i just compare numbers. nothing more

That whole efficiency thing comes from ATI themselves, but some developers and programmers have supported the argument, though. Still, take it with a big grain of salt until we hear more about actual development; that said, you really can't compare raw numbers of a standard shader straight across to a Unified shader, as Unified shaders are far more efficient. The difference is that in a real world gaming scenario, a standard shader doesn't have a chance at actually attaining those figures, whereas a Unifed shader can (theoretically, at least).

 

[3rdman]

umm..

i dont know much about spces. how man can u know that Xenos will have better efficiency than RSX when you dont have clear idea how the Cell + RSX will work. ??

all i know from those numbers [ which are just brnchmarks ] that RSX clearly has the edge in terms of raw power.

again. i am only talking from my ass. i just compare numbers. nothing more

Go read the article at Beyond3d...Numbers really don't say much when you compare the two...the architecture in Xenos is truly next-gen stuff and to make a comparison based on the numbers that Nvidia provides you is doing a disservice to what ATI accomplished.

 

[olimario]

Yay! More power!
When will they hire decent artists for their tech demos? Green hair lady is ugly.

 

[llTll]

Tonight we'll have a lot of reviews and benchmarks of G70 cards.
As for Ati comments,what do you expect them to say?
RSX on paper is much more powerful than Xenos in terms of shading which is a very important thing for next gen games.
Now it's all about games using this and Cell's power.

The folks over at Beyond3D are laughing at this one, if that means anything to you. I personally like the apples to oranges comparison chart myself.

i hope they clear these things.

and honestly, while i will at the end going to buy PS3, and X360. i wont buy the second console till its like 2 yeard after it release [ since i cant afford new console and new games for both consoles in the same time ] , i would love to see the xbox 360 being more powerful. thus i will buy it first [ ya i am graphics whore + game whore ] but the thing is both consoles will have good games that i like. so its up to who will offer me better graphics.


so ya. we will see

 

[Deg]

Yay! More power!
When will they hire decent artists for their tech demos? Green hair lady is ugly.

It just a graphics demo and they did a damn good job of showing off the various effects :lol

 

[olimario]

It just a graphics demo and they did a damn good job of showing off the various effects :lol

Is there a video of this? If so, please link.
Still, bad art.

 

[llTll]

That whole efficiency thing comes from ATI themselves, but some developers and programmers have supported the argument, thought. Still, take it with a big grain of salt until we hear more about actual development; that said, you really can't compare raw numbers of a standard shader straight across to a Unified shader, as Unified shaders are far more efficient. The difference is that in a real world gaming scenario, a standard shader doesn't have a chance at actually attaining those figures, whereas a Unifed shader can (theoretically, at least).

so its ok to believe ATI talk about effiency but its not ok to beleive Nvdia???


..... lol

at least many known japanese developers said that PS3 is more powerful than X360 couple of days ago. so thats more support to Nvdia to ATI.

 

[gofreak]

Having not read into any of this quite yet, I'll just say I'm glad it looks like NVidia will be opening up about RSX aswell as G70 tomorrow (assuming that comparison etc. is from them)

edit - this is pretty nice:

 

[Chiggs]

so its ok to believe ATI talk about effiency but its not ok to beleive Nvdia???


..... lol

I guess you missed my whole "Big grain of salt comment". And by the way, Unified Shaders aren't exactly exclusive to ATI.

 

[Borys]

It just a graphics demo and they did a damn good job of showing off the various effects :lol

You know I've got all nVidia and ATi demos (starting from TNT era) and this one looks so bland and uninspired.

Best nVidia tech demos in history:

- that lava blacksmith (Vulcan)
- the Creature (underwater monster with a laser beam)
- Dawn
- Time Machine (car in garage getting older)
- Zoltar
- Toy Soldiers

 

[Borys]

edit - this is pretty nice:

Is that Jesse from Monster Garage ?

 

[llTll]

Go read the article at Beyond3d...Numbers really don't say much when you compare the two...the architecture in Xenos is truly next-gen stuff and to make a comparison based on the numbers that Nvidia provides you is doing a disservice to what ATI accomplished.

Beyond3d had full access to xenos. so they knew everything about it. they came to a result that Xenos is a monster. very cool


but they dont have anything about RSX. and they didnt say anything comparing it to Xenos. so saying that Xenos is truly next gen when u dont know much about RSX isnt really vailed.


all i said that from numbers point of view. RSX smokes Xenos. if that was porven otherwise then its cool.
but till real tech starts to compare the 2, the RSX is more powerful


and u r right. numbers dont mean anything. as far as i know. the PS2 is more powerful than xbox [ numbers talk ]

 

[Forsete]

RSX looks like a little monster.
I be very happy

 

[llTll]

I guess you missed my whole "Big grain of salt comment". And by the way, Unified Shaders aren't exactly exclusive to ATI.

man i am not attacking you or anything.

i was just talking in general.

i didnt miss it

there is no reason to believe ATI if i am not going to believe Nvdia

however. based on Nvidia card on Xbox [compared to ps2, or ATI on GC ]. and what developers talk about PS3 being more powerful than the rest, make me feel more comfy believing them more than ATI.


after all. Nvidia is responding back to ATI's attack they did last week when they said that their card is more powerful than RSX

 

[Tenacious-V]

Beyond3d had full access to xenos. so they knew everything about it. they came to a result that Xenos is a monster. very cool


but they dont have anything about RSX. and they didnt say anything comparing it to Xenos. so saying that Xenos is truly next gen when u dont know much about RSX isnt really vailed.


all i said that from numbers point of view. RSX smokes Xenos. if that was porven otherwise then its cool.
but till real tech starts to compare the 2, the RSX is more powerful


and u r right. numbers dont mean anything. as far as i know. the PS2 is more powerful than xbox [ numbers talk ]

You have to take into account RSX is a G70@550Mhz. That's roughly the only difference between this and it's PC counterpart. We also know that ATi's Xenos will have a much better chance of hitting it's theoretical limits than RSX will due to it's PC like nature. Xenos doesn't have as high of numbers based on a chart, but those are theoretical numbers. Take into account PC cards NEVER hit theoretical limits in almost every realistic case, add in the 4xAA hit, and you've got a core that is roughly equivilent or (possibly) slightly lower than Xenos.

 

[gofreak]

Re. demos, I think the biker dude looks pretty damn good. Sorta reminscint of Pixar in terms of style, I think. There are more high-res screens at the link.

Other little snippets - Ultra Shadow 2 is twice as good as NV40. Also, they seem to have anti-aliasing on transparent textures as rumoured. I think this is it (they've other hl2 comparisons with things like wire fences etc):

You have to take into account RSX is a G70@550Mhz. That's roughly the only difference between this and it's PC counterpart.

It's not as novel as Xenos, for sure, but as regards performance this is hardly relevant..

We also know that ATi's Xenos will have a much better chance of hitting it's theoretical limits than RSX will due to it's PC like nature.

That RSX is in a closed box alleviates most of those issues, IMO. Xenos should certainly have higher per-ALU utilisation (though I don't think it'll be comparing to 50-70% on the RSX side), but on the flipside of the coin they're unified shaders won't be as efficient internally.

add in the 4xAA hit, and you've got a core that is roughly equivilent or (possibly) slightly lower than Xenos.

Are shaders used for AA? I know that indirectly it'll affect things like framerate and thus shader usage, but that's a more indirect impact.

 

[Lord Error]

The difference is that in a real world gaming scenario, a standard shader doesn't have a chance at actually attaining those figures, whereas a Unifed shader can (theoretically, at least).

Thsoe peak figures - doubtful. I don't think it's as cut and dry even with unified shaders, at least on R500 there seem to be some limitations of what kind of shader load suits it better. Theoretically they both can attain peak figures, but it should definitely be harder to provide such peak-favorable situation to classic GPU architecture. Although not as hard on a fixed platform as it would be on a PC.

Re. demos, I think the biker dude looks pretty damn good. Sorta reminscint of Pixar in terms of style, I think. There are more high-res screens at the link.

I think Molina is actually the most impressive thing they had so far - especially that part where he speaks the line from the movie. That was strikingly good looking.

What about FSAA+HDR? Does it say anything about that? I've read on some of these links above that HDR should be performance free or something?

 

[Lionheart]

Is there a video of this? If so, please link.
Still, bad art.

http://www.kikizo.com/viewer/vidview_games.asp?games/e32005/kikizo_ps3_lunademo_hd.wmv

 

[llTll]

You have to take into account RSX is a G70@550Mhz. That's roughly the only difference between this and it's PC counterpart. We also know that ATi's Xenos will have a much better chance of hitting it's theoretical limits than RSX will due to it's PC like nature. Xenos doesn't have as high of numbers based on a chart, but those are theoretical numbers. Take into account PC cards NEVER hit theoretical limits in almost every realistic case, add in the 4xAA hit, and you've got a core that is roughly equivilent or (possibly) slightly lower than Xenos.

1- You said it your self. 550 compared to 500
2- RSX is modified G70. its NOT G70. its modified for a console. thus you cant say it wont reach the same theortical number as Xeno's. if anything, then i guess its the ATI that will come close to RSX not the other way around
3- [ i am not sure about this one ] but isnt Cell can be used to help RSX in the same time? and isnt this cant be done on X360?? [ again i am not sure in this one ]

 

[gofreak]

3- [ i am not sure about this one ] but isnt Cell can be used to help RSX in the same time? and isnt this cant be done on X360?? [ again i am not sure in this one ]

It can, but Cell would be a bit more useful there IMO.

I think Molina is actually the most impressive thing they had so far - especially that part where he speaks the line from the movie. That was strikingly good looking.

I'd agree, certainly a more realistic look, but that wasn't a pure RSX or G70 demo (there was some Cell help there).

 

[Fafalada]

3- [ i am not sure about this one ] but isnt Cell can be used to help RSX in the same time? and isnt this cant be done on X360?? [ again i am not sure in this one ]

Both CPUs can cooperate with the GPU nicely (it's been heavily advertised on both sides as well).
That said, the way I see it, XeCPU isn't even in the same league as Cell when it comes to this kind of processing.

I think Molina is actually the most impressive thing they had so far - especially that part where he speaks the line from the movie. That was strikingly good looking.

It better be given they were using realworld light probe capture (though amusingly enough, the original demo I've seen of this technique looks better even though it used a visibly lower poly facial model then the PS3 demo).
Remains to be seen how usefull these techniques will be outside academic research though.

 

[thorns]

Or how about they took 120 and multiplied it by 430 and 550 respectively.

you got me there.. i do backwards thinking sometimes.
anyway the point still remains that the chinese charts just did some math?

 

[Deg]

The light glowing through the skin was very impressive.

 

[MidgarBlowedUp]

You know I've got all nVidia and ATi demos (starting from TNT era) and this one looks so bland and uninspired.

Best nVidia tech demos in history:

- that lava blacksmith (Vulcan)
- the Creature (underwater monster with a laser beam)
- Dawn
- Time Machine (car in garage getting older)
- Zoltar
- Toy Soldiers

I'd give my left nut for a FFVII Aries demo w/nude patch!

 

[Tenacious-V]

1- You said it your self. 550 compared to 500
2- RSX is modified G70. its NOT G70. its modified for a console. thus you cant say it wont reach the same theortical number as Xeno's. if anything, then i guess its the ATI that will come close to RSX not the other way around
3- [ i am not sure about this one ] but isnt Cell can be used to help RSX in the same time? and isnt this cant be done on X360?? [ again i am not sure in this one ]

1) Yes, but a higher clock speed isn't everything. Take Intel vs AMD cpus for example. Intel is at 3.8GHz while AMD is at 2.6GHz yet AMD trounces Intel in performance. It's about design and efficiency, a lower clocked part which is more efficient can take out something with a higher clock, a higher number doesn't always equaly better performance. This is also why Intel is moving away from a MHz rating of their cores and onto branding, such as P4 540, 550, 560 etc. They aren't advertising MHz anymore, cause it's not a determinate of performance like it used to be.

2) RSX is modified for inputs, it is a G70. The difference is for it's connection to CELL not fundamental performance changes to it's core.

3) Both XeCPU and CELL can aid in graphics, both are touting it. ATi's Xenos can directly address the L2 cache of the XeCPUs.

 

[monkeymagic]

So if RSX is more powerful than Xenos (based on RAW numbers), what kind of hit will it take for FSAA (2X or 4X) and what can be passed off onto CELL to accommodate such a hit?

 

[Lord Error]

Here's a G70 PDF:

http://www.3dchips.net/test/hard/grafik/G70/PO_GEF_7800_07.pdf

Even mentions displacement mapping.

NVIDIA® CineFX™ 4.0 Shading Architecture

+Vertex Shaders
° Support for Microsoft DirectX 9.0 Vertex Shader 3.0
° Displacement mapping
° Geometry instancing
° Infinite length vertex programs

+Pixel Shaders
° Support for DirectX 9.0 Pixel Shader 3.0
° Full pixel branching support
° Support for Multiple Render Targets (MRTs)
° Infinite length pixel programs

+Next-Generation Texture Engine
° Accelerated texture access
° Up to 16 textures per rendering pass
° Support for 16-bit floating point format and 32-bit floating point format
° Support for non-power of two textures
° Support for sRGB texture format for gamma textures
° DirectX and S3TC texture compression

+Full 128-bit studio-quality floating point precision through the entire rendering pipeline with native hardware support for 32bpp, 64bpp, and 128bpp rendering modes

64-Bit Texture Filtering and Blending

+Full floating point support throughout entire pipeline

+Floating point filtering improves the quality of images in motion

+Floating point texturing drives new levels of clarity and image detail

+Floating point frame buffer blending gives detail to special effects like motion blur and explosions NVIDIA® Intellisample™ 4.0 Technology

+Advanced 16x anisotropic filtering (with up to 128 Taps)

+Blistering-fast antialiasing and compression performance


+Transparent multisampling and transparent supersampling modes boost antialiasing quality to new levels

+Gamma-adjusted rotated-grid antialiasing removes jagged edges for incredible image quality

+Support for normal map compression
+Support for advanced lossless compression algorithms for color, texture, and z-data at even higher resolutions and frame rates

+Fast z-clear

NVIDIA® UltraShadow™ II Technology
+Designed to enhance the performance of shadow-intensive games NVIDIA® SLI™ Technology

+Patented hardware and software technology allows two GPUs to run in parallel to scale performance

 

[monkeymagic]

2) RSX is modified for inputs, it is a G70. The difference is for it's connection to CELL not fundamental performance changes to it's core.

3) Both XeCPU and CELL can aid in graphics, both are touting it. ATi's Xenos can directly address the L2 cache of the XeCPUs.

By your logic XeCPU is just a modified PPC so how can its GPU-aiding abilities be comparable to CELL which was itself at one point considered for PS3's GPU?

 

[Tenacious-V]

That RSX is in a closed box alleviates most of those issues, IMO. Xenos should certainly have higher per-ALU utilisation (though I don't think it'll be comparing to 50-70% on the RSX side), but on the flipside of the coin they're unified shaders won't be as efficient internally.

That's true, but Xenos' ability to dedicate the entire 48 ALU's to either Pixel processing or Vertex if/when needed is a huge advantage. RSX will be alleviated due to it being in a closed console, but it will not reach it's theoretical limits, it will be better than their PC equivilents yes, but it still won't.

Are shaders used for AA? I know that indirectly it'll affect things like framerate and thus shader usage, but that's a more indirect impact.

True as well, but the hit from 4xAA will limit what you can do, it's a trade off. You can either go nuts with no AA, or take the AA hit and back off on detail. Fillrate drops etc.

 

[3rdman]

Yeah, those Xenos numbers are wrong - they are from NVIDIA based on the early discussions. Obviously they had no deeper knowledge of the architecture beyond the 48 ALU's with Vec4 + Scalar.

Thats from Dave at B3d...this comparison chart is useless.

 

[Tenacious-V]

By your logic XeCPU is just a modified PPC so how can its GPU-aiding abilities be comparable to CELL which was itself at one point considered for PS3's GPU?

Yes it is a modfied PPC core. I never disputed that (heck I didn't even bring that up), except in the case of XeCPU, their were some fundamental changes. Namely getting rid of some logic and adding a crossbar for the 3 cores as well as sharing the L2 cache between them. Modifications to get it from it's current 2.6(?)GHz limit, to the 3.2Ghz it is now. But in the case of G70/RSX there are no fundamental changes to the core (adding/removing logic), just respins to get it to 550.

CPU's doing graphics is nothing new, it's been around for a while. CELL just takes it to the extreme in it's direction. You can dedicate 1 of 3 CPU's to graphics if you want on XeCPU, or you can use Xenos to access the CPU's L2 cache directly. Both systems can utilize CPU aid in graphics, CELL just can do it better.

 

[Lord Error]

But in the case of G70/RSX there are no fundamental changes to the core (adding/removing logic), just respins to get it to 550.

I'm not 100% sure that it's exactly the same thing. The 128bit HDR and blending is something that is supposedly inegrated in the RSX, and it's not in G70.

 

[gofreak]

Here's a G70 PDF:

http://www.3dchips.net/test/hard/grafik/G70/PO_GEF_7800_07.pdf

Even mentions displacement mapping.

Also mentions "fullspeed" HDR, whatever that means.

I'm quite interested to see how HDR has come along as well as AA performance. The alpha AA looks really sweet.

 

[thorns]

Deanoc (PS3 developer) said that xecpu can do software rendering at 70-80% of cell, and depending on the input, can even match it. Take that as you will.

 

[gofreak]

Deanoc (PS3 developer) said that xecpu can do software rendering at 70-80% of cell, and depending on the input, can even match it. Take that as you will.

No one's talking about software rendering. He was talking about a full-blown rendering...helping the GPU != software rendering. In terms of other areas where the CPU can help the GPU he was of a different opinion.

 

[Lord Error]

Deanoc (PS3 developer) said that xecpu can do software rendering at 70-80% of cell, and depending on the input, can even match it. Take that as you will.

Where is everyone coming up with these DeanoC quotes? When did he mention any specific numbers?

 

[gofreak]

Where is everyone coming up with these DeanoC quotes? When did he mention any specific numbers?

I recall the figures, as outlined above. He rarely indulges in direct comparison however.

(btw, check pm shortly!)

 

[golem]

the x800xl comparison is funny.. but basically it seems like with 4xAA and 8xAF the gains are not that great over the Ultra.. is it becoming cpu limited?

 

[Tenacious-V]

the x800xl comparison is funny.. but basically it seems like with 4xAA and 8xAF the gains are not that great over the Ultra.. is it becoming cpu limited?

I know, the fact they didn't compare it vs the top of the line ATi part (X850XT PE) while the 6800Ultra is sitting there.....Makes you wonder....

But on the other hand, what I got out of that X800XL comparison is through all of the charts the XL is a damn good card!!! For a bang for buck card, and not top ATi, it's doing awesome!!

 

[gofreak]

A lot of these benches are definitely CPU limited with the G70, I think.

 

[gofreak]

Some watercooled overclocking experiments:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=66489&page=1&pp=25

The thread's a bit confusing, seems to go from SLI results to non-SLI etc. but it seems quite clockable - they managed to get up to 549Mhz sofar with watercooling:

(this is 3DMark03 btw, to be clear. A slightly lower clocked card in 05 gets nearly 10k):

 

[Chiggs]

Thsoe peak figures - doubtful. I don't think it's as cut and dry even with unified shaders, at least on R500 there seem to be some limitations of what kind of shader load suits it better. Theoretically they both can attain peak figures, but it should definitely be harder to provide such peak-favorable situation to classic GPU architecture. Although not as hard on a fixed platform as it would be on a PC.

Good points.

 

[Fafalada]

anyway the point still remains that the chinese charts just did some math?

It's certainly possible. But the article does state RSX numbers come from NVidia. I'm sure that if they do, we'll see confirmation/denial as other sites put their reviews up within a few hours.

I recall the figures, as outlined above. He rarely indulges in direct comparison however.

IIRC the context was quite different then that. Anyway, I don't think XeCPU is even close on those kind of workloads, most likely lower then marketting numbers indicate as well.

 

[Tenacious-V]

Regarding the Xenos in the nVidia released document...

"Yeah, those Xenos numbers are wrong - they are from NVIDIA based on the early discussions. Obviously they had no deeper knowledge of the architecture beyond the 48 ALU's with Vec4 + Scalar."

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=24214&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=20

 

[Nostromo]

Tenacious-V: They used the same number MS and ATI released about Xenos.
I agree they're not counting all the ops a Xenos ALU can do but this not their fault, ATI is simply not releasing this kind of informations to the public.
They don't even talked about that in 'super' interview/chat they had with Dave Baumann @ B3D.

 

[gofreak]

Regarding the Xenos in the nVidia released document...



http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=24214&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=20

I think he's referring to the lack of mention of the seperate texture address units in Xenos, but asides from that the figures seem sound enough to me. They are taking what MS has advertised, but absence of the texture address units is the biggest discrepancy. That doesn't mean the whole lot should be thrown out, just adjusted..(but we still need a bit more info on texture addressing in G70 to figure out how they should be adjusted..)

Anyway, it's nice to begin to see where NVidia's RSX numbers at E3 were coming from.

 

[Tenacious-V]

Tenacious-V: They used the same number MS and ATI released about Xenos.
I agree they're not counting all the ops a Xenos ALU can do but this not their fault, ATI is simply not releasing this kind of informations to the public.
They don't even talked about that in 'super' interview/chat they had with Dave Baumann @ B3D.

ATi would be more than willing to release all the info they could, but it's MS that owns the IP.... So ultimately it's up the them.